Rich to buy University Places
DonDaddyD
Posts: 12,689
Universities in England may be allowed to make extra places available for wealthy UK students, under proposals being considered the government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13343824
So they increased the fees for Universities to £9000. Some of you swore blindly that all Universities would and guess what? They did. You then claimed that it wouldn't act as a barrier for the poor and guess what? It does.
Now those wonderful I'm alright jack Tories have come up with this brilliant masterstroke. Extra Uni places for those that can afford them.
Discuss.
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
0
Comments
-
DonDaddyD wrote:
Universities in England may be allowed to make extra places available for wealthy UK students, under proposals being considered the government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13343824
So they increased the fees for Universities to £9000. Some of you swore blindly that all Universities would and guess what? They did. You then claimed that it wouldn't act as a barrier for the poor and guess what? It does.
Now those wonderful I'm alright jack Tories have come up with this brilliant masterstroke. Extra Uni places for those that can afford them.
Discuss.
actually I swore blind that the top Uni's will raise the fees to £15k within five years, and they'll have no shortage of applicants.0 -
Davmaggs,
Yes, but the point is accessibility for those with less.
I guarantee there will be less people from low income families going to University - despite having the grades - due to the recent increase in tuition costs (and all the additional costs around that) and Uni's will still be oversubscribed.
Whether we need more Uni's is a seperate issue IMO from is the costs prohibitive to a large group of society and does that put them at an unfair disadvantage.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
JonGinge wrote:The proposal is for off-quota places, just like for overseas students who receive no government subsidy and bolster universities bank balances by quite a bit...
How is it fair that a rich person has to pay more than a poor person on Government subsidy? How is it fair that a rich person can buy a place when a poorer person with better grades has to go through the standard process and may not be awarded a place?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
JonGinge wrote:The proposal is for off-quota places, just like for overseas students who receive no government subsidy and bolster universities bank balances by quite a bit...
Yep, some Universities rely quite heavily on overseas students.
The proposal seems to be a way for the well off to jump the queue. Sure, there are entry requirements, but if they're anything like the requirements for overseas students then its a bit of a joke. I've heard of people getting on to bioscience master's courses with chinese animal husbandry degrees. :?0 -
See DDD you can announce your slant on it, or you view it like this. Like most things in life, if the better off are willing to pay extra, they should be free to do so.The Paper wrote:The concept would also encourage employers and charities to sponsor the costly extra places. The creation of extra places would boost social mobility by freeing up more publicly subsidised places for teenagers from poorer homes, ministers argue.0 -
It represents a change in attitude towards higher education.
It's no longer considered part of the package which goes under the "right to education".
It's considered either a luxury, where studying arts subjects like history become increasingly studies that only some can afford, or an investment.
I know that quite a few teenagers will now be weighing up the value added by university, and many will feel the cost no longer makes it worth the effort.
Given my experience of university, and the experiences my mother has with her studuents (though with her paycheque is another issue), I'd say it's a significant loss, and the repercussions will be felt in the long term.0 -
Good. The barmy idea that at least half the population would be well served by undergoing a uni education was always one of Blair's madder ideas. Instead of decrying those that can't or don't want to go to uni, it's better to encourage the less academically able to go down the vocational path instead. Not everyone has within them the potential to achieve that which a university education can provide.Rick Chasey wrote:I know that quite a few teenagers will now be weighing up the value added by university, and many will feel the cost no longer makes it worth the effort.0 -
no point thinking long term if you're in politics, it's a popularity contest pure an simple and you might be out of a job in 5 years.
As long as these 'extra' spaces are the ones who are excused from oversubscribed lab work etc, they can sit at the back and get less education if they want
edited for spelling.FCN 120 -
This country isn't and never has been a meritocracy. If it ever looks like it will be the powers that be will always have a way of circumventing it and keeping us plebs in our places.
If your expensively educated nipper is too stupid to get into Oxbridge you can just buy him a place there instead.0 -
CiB wrote:
Good. The barmy idea that at least half the population would be well served by undergoing a uni education was always one of Blair's madder ideas. Instead of decrying those that can't or don't want to go to uni, it's better to encourage the less academically able to go down the vocational path instead. Not everyone has within them the potential to achieve that which a university education can provide.Rick Chasey wrote:I know that quite a few teenagers will now be weighing up the value added by university, and many will feel the cost no longer makes it worth the effort.
With that attitude, why bother teaching anyone beyond basic english for free?0 -
The universities have to raise money somehow - foreign students have been buying degrees for years - perhaps universities will be able to concentrate om more quality teaching and less meeja studies0
-
Editted....
Just sharing my perspective.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I went to uni with plenty of people who's mums and dad's had been paying £9k a year in school fees, even £30k a year, pretty acceptable to crank the fees up for them wouldn't you agree?
The teaching quality of our uni's is utter rubbish, funding is so reliant on research students come distinctly second, at least if we're paying through the nose people will accept much more from the system!0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Davmaggs,
Yes, but the point is accessibility for those with less.
I guarantee there will be less people from low income families going to University - despite having the grades - due to the recent increase in tuition costs (and all the additional costs around that) and Uni's will still be oversubscribed.
Whether we need more Uni's is a seperate issue IMO from is the costs prohibitive to a large group of society and does that put them at an unfair disadvantage.
Why is accessbility of relevence? It is such a nebulous concept and one that lets politicians play about and easily countered by the fact that any student can borrow the money they need it and pay it back over time.
The issue is actually that some places are too cheap for demand so we have the pickle and lash-up of the current proposal, which isn't thought through and led to the foolish idea from Willits today. They need one, well thought plan that we can all argue through rather than the current graduate tax rehashed into fees with so many regulations or offsets that causes a mess.
I am more concerned about the fees growing larger and larger as University managers vote themselves larger pay raises and suck up the extra cash or an arms race (like the USA) where fees go up and up to spend on prestige, but no benefit has been given to students.0 -
Accessibility is an issue in that I think all people in society, who have earned the right should have the opportunity to go to University, not just the rich and those that can afford it.
At £9k, irrespective if students can borrow the money, it is too much. £9K just covers the tuition fees (which need to be paid back). It doesn't take into consideration rising living costs, course materials etc.
All of which become a barrier to entry for parents encouraging their kids and who want to support them financially through University.
Even still, having just left Uni and having generated this massive debt*. Students aren't guaranteed a job. In fact unemployed graduates is at an all time high.
So it's only appealing and accessible for those who can afford to go. Yay! Rich remain rich. Poor (despite Uni going grades) remain poor. Yay! = sarcasm.
(how long will it take to pay back £27,000 and how much are the instalments - not taking into any consderation student overdrafts, credit cards or other loans the students or parents may need to take out....)Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
The HE system in this country is going to tank horribly in the next few years.
Teaching budgets slashed, no research funding, putting a greater financial burden on the student while at the same time reducing the money available to the university.
On top of that it's being made significantly more difficult for universities to take on foreign students, especially the really lucrative ones from the likes of Dubai and Saudi where the student's government pays fees, travel expenses, and living costs for the student.
Of the people I know who recently obtained their doctorates I can only think of one that isn't planning on leaving the country by the next academic year. Once the wife finishes hers we're probably looking at Norway, Sweden, or The Netherlands. Maybe Canada if we can persuade someone to offer a relocation bonus.0 -
CiB wrote:
Good. The barmy idea that at least half the population would be well served by undergoing a uni education was always one of Blair's madder ideas. Instead of decrying those that can't or don't want to go to uni, it's better to encourage the less academically able to go down the vocational path instead. Not everyone has within them the potential to achieve that which a university education can provide.Rick Chasey wrote:I know that quite a few teenagers will now be weighing up the value added by university, and many will feel the cost no longer makes it worth the effort.
+1 to that but to take it a step further, even if half the workforce had a degree there are not that many "degree" level jobs in existence.
That for me was the great treachery of the 50% target as it tricked people who should not have gone to Uni into running up huge debts in the belief they would all find highly paid jobs at the end of it. Now they find themselves in the same shit jobs as if they had not gone to Uni but with 3 years less experience and £20k of debt to pay off.
As a general point a few threads recently have focussed on something being "Fair" or not. Whilst this may be a noble ambition life is not fair and never will be. Once you accept that you can make the most of what you have without all the angst.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Even still, having just left Uni and having generated this massive debt*. Students aren't guaranteed a job. In fact unemployed graduates is at an all time high.
That's the point though isn't it. If you can't use your £27+K investment to get a decent job then maybe going to university isn't the best idea.
Assuming that with the old system the tax payer picks up the tab was it really such a good use of public money to stuff so many people through uni?
The one change I'd like to see implemented is subsidies for degrees that the country actually needs (engineering, sciences, etc).0 -
Jay dubbleU wrote:perhaps universities will be able to concentrate om more quality teaching and less meeja studies
You are Richard Littlejohn and I claim my £10.0 -
El Gordo wrote:The one change I'd like to see implemented is subsidies for degrees that the country actually needs (engineering, sciences, etc).
No jobs for them either. Two of the PhDs I mentioned above are Physicists. They could only find jobs in France. I know several MechEng graduates that have been made redundant and can't find anything. One moved to Denmark.
IIRC Nursing and medicine are very heavily subsidised, but the NHS still recruits heavily from abroad.0 -
CiB wrote:
Good. The barmy idea that at least half the population would be well served by undergoing a uni education was always one of Blair's madder ideas. Instead of decrying those that can't or don't want to go to uni, it's better to encourage the less academically able to go down the vocational path instead. Not everyone has within them the potential to achieve that which a university education can provide.Rick Chasey wrote:I know that quite a few teenagers will now be weighing up the value added by university, and many will feel the cost no longer makes it worth the effort.
So if we agree fewer people should study for a degree, who are the ones that should miss out, the stupid or the poor?0 -
nation wrote:El Gordo wrote:The one change I'd like to see implemented is subsidies for degrees that the country actually needs (engineering, sciences, etc).
No jobs for them either. Two of the PhDs I mentioned above are Physicists. They could only find jobs in France. I know several MechEng graduates that have been made redundant and can't find anything. One moved to Denmark.
IIRC Nursing and medicine are very heavily subsidised, but the NHS still recruits heavily from abroad.
Well, yeah, that is true. I know a lot of unemployed engineers too but that's a whole different matter.
You see my point though - they need to make the more 'useful' degrees accessable so that the 'useless' degrees become an unaffordable luxury purchase.0 -
The fees issue was a dead duck once Blair brought it in. The 50% quota was handy for soaking up youth unemployment and for patching over the decline of school education.
I would like to see a massive push on informing potential students about their true prospects so that Universities can't carry on making claims about job prospects that don't stack up, in publishing transparent financial figures so that senior Universities staff can't vote themselves pay rises and a mechnism for booting management staff out (I'm thinking LSC signing off Gaddaffi Jnr, in new universities going bust) as they aren't subject to market forces. Also prevent them stretching courses out to make more revenue
Also change degrees so that students can decide when to take modules. Many courses could be done in two years or stretched if the student wants to get a job. Also do opening year at local HE establishment and save on living away.
We are in a lull at the moment where the introduction of full fees hasn't yet sunk in and there is an expectation that life will carry on. I suspect that certain courses will decline, going to local Universities will increase and students will really start hounding course tutors when lectures are poor.0 -
I do wish people would understand - or at least not misrepresent - the concept of student fees. It's not like a loan to buy a sports car that you otherwise couldn't afford; it's an advance from the govt to pay the fees on your behalf; when you eventually earn a salary above around £22k (IIRC) you then pay a slightly higher rate of tax.DonDaddyD wrote:(how long will it take to pay back £27,000 and how much are the instalments - not taking into any consderation student overdrafts, credit cards or other loans the students or parents may need to take out....)
I'd nominate the stupid as the ones who perhaps shouldn't waste £27000 studying for a degree.Vitessetortoise wrote:So if we agree fewer people should study for a degree, who are the ones that should miss out, the stupid or the poor?0 -
Vitessetortoise wrote:
So if we agree fewer people should study for a degree, who are the ones that should miss out, the stupid or the poor?
The stupid of course, that is the point of Uni after all. Or was this a trick question?0 -
davmaggs wrote:I am more concerned about the fees growing larger and larger as University managers vote themselves larger pay raises and suck up the extra cash or an arms race (like the USA) where fees go up and up to spend on prestige, but no benefit has been given to students.
This.
The raise in fees is nothing more than pushing the pension liabilities off balance sheet for a few more years. Once they get stuck into this, wages and pension liabilities will rise even further. Few students will ever pay back these fees and eventually they'll come back as a very large cost to the tax payer.
We're turning our education into a ponzi scheme, with the tax payer liable for the bottom rung.
0 -
http://www.bolton.ac.uk/UAECampus/
universities need reform - and the UK needs to be honest about whether they are an educational establishment or a UK PLC revenue generator
although to be fair to the universities, the lack of a level playing field for under 18s education deals them a bum hand - which is the root cause that every political party is completely myopic to"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
davmaggs wrote:Vitessetortoise wrote:
So if we agree fewer people should study for a degree, who are the ones that should miss out, the stupid or the poor?
The stupid of course, that is the point of Uni after all. Or was this a trick question?
Not a trick question, an inference that if you're rich and stupid you can get a uni place but bright and poor you probably wont risk the debt. Perhaps not the best way to allocate higher education?0
